samson

Because there are functional problems to this issue. The representative portion may be, but their might be other public servants who aren't aboriginal and may be excluded if mentioned in the constitution. If you insert functional requirements into the constitution to enable such things you remove the ability to change the Voice's functions as mentioned before. Legal interpretations suggest that a voice would have to be comprised of ATSI people regardless.

^Dmoneymoneymoney^C
michael@server-prod-$

What's your point? This is the reason we have the courts. We could write into infinity the processes and procedure of a voice but the other bodies are free to determine those for themselves, we are leaving this to Parliament so that the voice can change according to need and times.

We would never abandon our commitment to consular assistance in Russia just because the government may not listen to us. We regard it as a duty regardless of perception in the current moment. We also know that different times will produce different outcomes in those efforts, and that ultimately representation isn't doesn't force anyone's hand in helping Australians. We may bring up issues that are gaining traction domestically but aren't heard by the RU gov, or let them see from our POV. We get all of this with a voice. Even if we are completely ignored, these benefits help in pushing our concerns across a wider audience that may have previously not heard them.

Constitutional interpretation relies on all sources used to draft the document. Intentions must be gathered as this is a founding document, therefore all Acts spring forth from it. Explanatory documents, the Uluru statement itself, and documents by the referendum working group all support the idea of the A&TSIVoice being for ATSI people only.

I'm not great fans of schrinner and the lot, but yes the public service is honestly great and very strong in enforcing Code of Conduct. There's a separate department for ethical violations to regular HR stuff, which seems quite strong on the surface, not that I've had any problems working there.

The idea that the voice is some sort of useless idea is seriously flawed. Policy institutes and Parliamentary hearing and committee are the biggest drivers of policy in this country. Media attention and petitions aren't nearly as effective in this regard. The voice will likely not be integrated as a Parliamentary comittee is, due to its being a separate body, but will still offer valuable representation to Parliament to those who came before these institutions and this country. Aboriginals had their own traditions, nations and sovereignty on land that was not ceded. We have accepted their legal and unique history with this land, this is merely saying that within the framework of Australia as a country, that Aboriginals deserve access to our legislature and executive on matters that affect them.

The popular argument by resident no voter @whirlybird@aussie.zone seems to be that this is virtue signalling and that this would be the end of social justice for Aboriginals, that resistance would develop in trying to advance a cause further. They seem to suggest that we would be better off doing something of substance, as to not foment resistance and resentment. I would hope that on the first point, its been made clear that there is real benefit to having a Voice, and the second is irrelevant, the Australian population will tire after a no vote, and after a yes vote. Its the jobs of those politically active, the media, the Voice itself, politicians, and those non apathetic people to push for more when the time comes.

A second argument I hear, and the most factually true argument I hear is lack of detail. It is true that there is a lack of official detail from those legislators who will be advancing bills if the referendum finishes in the affirmative. It is also understandable to want to know in substance what the fruits of your vote would be. Id encourage those who would like to learn to listen to ideas from the referendum working group and those associated with the yes campaign on rough ideas of a Voice if this is the case. Its important to remember that we are voting on the amendment though, not the bill itself. There are significant measures that must go into establishing the voice in substance:

• Will the voice exist entirely under its own weight, legislated by Parliament and run by itself, or will the bureaucratic arm of the voice exist in the Australian Public Service
• How will the voice be elected? How will regional voices be represented? Is a federal model (each nation receives x representatives), a state based model (each state receives x amount of reps) or a unitary, population based model more effective?

All of these questions take significant time. If you can focus on the amendment, and whether support those ideas outside of what a future voice may look like, it will help.

You've thoroughly thrashed him, applause.

This isn't much of a thing in this country but it's not impossible. Fear radicalisation and trivial legislation. Not an argument against the voice though.

Untrue. The high court would have something to say about an aboriginal voice being composed of non Aboriginals.

Not entirely true. HC will likely set some sort of minimum standard for composition eventually, probably minimum standards for how they can provide representations if parliament decides to make it hard for them to do so.

It's only meaningless in the sense it doesn't have any legislative power. Committees like this have strong roots in our democracy and have extreme benefit both to policy institutes and parliament itself in developing legislation. Parliamentary practice in this country would be dysfunctional if legislative committees and policy institutes didn't exist, this is just allowing that same power of research and representation that is afforded to committees to a group of people who had their sovereignty and institutions stripped from them with zero recourse.